State v. Bonnie Valinda Boman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 41318
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 376
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: February 14, 2014
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
BONNIE VALINDA BOMAN, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years with a minimum
period of confinement of five years for grand theft by possession of stolen
property, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Bonnie Valinda Boman was convicted of grand theft by possession of stolen property,
Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1), 18-2409. The district court sentenced Boman to a
unified term of fourteen years with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Boman
appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App.
1
1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Boman’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2